Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Fervent]

Since the claims of scripture are the topic of debate they cannot be considered reliable evidence. To be considered that believers would have to show that they are reliable and no one has ever been able to do that. What you are proposing is circular reasoning. Which is a logical fallacy.

Are you aware of the Munchausen Trilemma? If pressed every claim is ultimately justified either circularity, dogma, or reliance on an infinite regress. So while circularity is problematic, ultimately it is required if we are to not be solipsistic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most of the time when descriptions are offered they're not intended to be literal(though whether the Hebrew word refers to both spherical and flat circles is not completely certain so I question why you pick scholars that agree with your position while ignoring ones that affirm the opposite as the more authoritative) but to convey God's stature in comparison to the known world.

They did have words that essentially meant "sphere" but those are never used. They have words that clearly mean "flat circle" and those are the ones that are used. That indicates a belief in a Flat Earth.

And you are forgetting the deeds. I do believe that I said word and deed. If not that was an oversight on my part. At least twice in the Bible a person climbs a tall object to see all of the Earth. Now in one of them it is claimed by apologists that he was only looking at all of the nearby land. But when Satan supposedly showed Jesus the nations of the world that would mean far more than just Judea and surroundings. And if it was just a "vison" then why climb at all in the first place?

 

[Bradskii]

Most of the time when descriptions are offered they're not intended to be literal...

Hmmm. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you aware of the Munchausen Trilemma? If pressed every claim is ultimately justified either circularity, dogma, or reliance on an infinite regress. So while circularity is problematic, ultimately it is required if we are to not be solipsistic.

Yes we could be a "brain in a vat". But sooner or later we need reasonable grounds for what is acceptable. The Bible fails when it comes to that. What we can observe time after time is much more reasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't believe in God or scripture so you are hardly going to take anything to do with it seriously. But again I will play.

Like I said we have a snap shot from scripture about certain changes that occurred at the fall-flood and Tower of babel. This does not mean it was all of the changes, just the ones that God pointed out because as I said scripture is not a book about science, its a book about truth.

Before the fall there was no death.

Death meaning creatures with a soul and life blood, that I apparently have to repeat every time to prevent someone jumping in with nonsense about plants being chewed and bugs being steeped on. Surely our model is not so hard that you all can't remember some of the basic facts.

Sin brought in death. Only man can sin. This happened shortly after creation.
Man was created from the ground and brought to life by God. Already we have a vastly different world set up going on.

The fall changed the biology and behaviors of animals, corrupting them from their original purpose. Many herbivores became carnivores, many helpful parasites became destroying parasites.
The fall changed the plants, again corrupting them and changing them. Thorns and thistles came with the curse.

The flood caused the vapour canopy to fall down, it also caused an ice age and a permanent change in climate and changed the amount of Cosmic Rays reaching the earth.

These are the type of changes that I am talking about.

Many of those claims would have consequences attached to them that you do not appreciate. They can be tested by those consequences. When it comes to those stories the claims of the stories themselves is what refutes them.

 

[Fervent]

Yes we could be a "brain in a vat". But sooner or later we need reasonable grounds for what is acceptable. The Bible fails when it comes to that. What we can observe time after time is much more reasonable.

You skipped right over what I stated, because we were speaking of premises. Even the idea that logic is coherent and real(and not simply something men have imagined) requires circular justification. How can we justify logic without engaging in circularity?

 

[Fervent]

What we can observe time after time is much more reasonable.

Except Christians are told to discard their direct observations in favor of the "objective" observations of others. Why should I discard my direct experiences with God and the Bible in favor of skeptics arguments? Why should I doubt rather than remain credulous about what I have consistently observed to bear fruit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You skipped right over what I stated, because we were speaking of premises. Even the idea that logic is coherent and real(and not simply something men have imagined) requires circular justification. How can we justify logic without engaging in circularity?

I tend to ignore silly games.

 

[Fervent]

I tend to ignore silly games.

It's not a game, it's a serious question. You use logic as a measuring stick for what is an isn't real, so how do you justify it? What basis makes it a credible source?

 

[Bradskii]

You don't believe in God or scripture so you are hardly going to take anything to do with it seriously. But again I will play.

Like I said we have a snap shot from scripture about certain changes that occurred at the fall-flood and Tower of babel. This does not mean it was all of the changes, just the ones that God pointed out because as I said scripture is not a book about science, its a book about truth.

Before the fall there was no death.

Death meaning creatures with a soul and life blood, that I apparently have to repeat every time to prevent someone jumping in with nonsense about plants being chewed and bugs being steeped on. Surely our model is not so hard that you all can't remember some of the basic facts.

Sin brought in death. Only man can sin. This happened shortly after creation.
Man was created from the ground and brought to life by God. Already we have a vastly different world set up going on.

The fall changed the biology and behaviors of animals, corrupting them from their original purpose. Many herbivores became carnivores, many helpful parasites became destroying parasites.
The fall changed the plants, again corrupting them and changing them. Thorns and thistles came with the curse.

The flood caused the vapour canopy to fall down, it also caused an ice age and a permanent change in climate and changed the amount of Cosmic Rays reaching the earth.

These are the type of changes that I am talking about.

I think it's been mentioned that not all descriptions are meant to be taken literally. And as you say, scripture is not a science book. But you are not using scripture as a metaphor. You are saying that these things actually occurred, which could then be scientifically verified. But when you're asked for evidence you say that scripture is not science. And we go around again...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except Christians are told to discard their direct observations in favor of the "objective" observations of others. Why should I discard my direct experiences with God and the Bible in favor of skeptics arguments? Why should I doubt rather than remain credulous about what I have consistently observed to bear fruit?

They are not told to but far too many think that they have to. That is the subject of this thread.

And I am sorry, but so called "direct experiences with God" is just a claim. There is a difference between a claim and an observation. If I do not have the same "experiences with God" it does not disprove yours, but if you cannot show that your experiences are not reproducible for others it is just a claim and not an objective observation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a game, it's a serious question. You use logic as a measuring stick for what is an isn't real, so how do you justify it? What basis makes it a credible source?

Because it works reliably. Religious beliefs and claims fail when the same standards are applied.

 

[coffee4u]

First of all asking a evolutionary biologist about stratigraphy or radiometric dating would be kind of weird, stratigraphy is geology for starters.

I wasn't asking an evolutionary biologist about stratigraphy or radiometric dating. He used the terms and I wanted to be sure he would agree with my summery of what they were.

Radioactive decay rates are properties of nuclei derived from the properties of the nuclear forces. The basic forces of nature have been measured to be stable for longer than the age of the Earth (i.e., more than 4.5 billion years). Decay rates aren't an issue.

As I said I don't study science, I study scripture. As far as I know radioactive dating is based on carbon isotopes which are high-energy particles that are assumed to come from beyond the solar system. Again based on more assumptions, this time about things beyond the solar system.

 

[coffee4u]

They are not told to but far too many think that they have to. That is the subject of this thread.

And I am sorry, but so called "direct experiences with God" is just a claim. There is a difference between a claim and an observation. If I do not have the same "experiences with God" it does not disprove yours, but if you cannot show that your experiences are not reproducible for others it is just a claim and not an objective observation.

Sorry but as an atheist you are so far off the truth about God, life and death that whatever you say is skewed. All you can see is the physical reality in front of you.

 

[Fervent]

They are not told to but far too many think that they have to. That is the subject of this thread.

And I am sorry, but so called "direct experiences with God" is just a claim. There is a difference between a claim and an observation. If I do not have the same "experiences with God" it does not disprove yours, but if you cannot show that your experiences are not reproducible for others it is just a claim and not an objective observation.

You seem mixed up in what I am saying. I understand where you are coming from and don't expect you to consider my statements, but our experiences give us different premises we're working with. For you, you are constructing a hypothesis about what is and isn't real based on your own ability to reason alone in ignorance. For me, God has revealed truth through direct contact both in my life and through the Bible. I will build on the foundation of God's word, as opposed to your ignorant guesses and constructions.

 

[Bradskii]

As I said I don't study science, I study scripture.

So does it make sense that if I want to know about scripture, I would defer to someone who has studied it. And if you wanted to know about science then you would defer to someone who had studied it?

I don't argue about scripture. I'm no expert. But why do you see the need to argue against something about which you readily admit you haven't the knowledge.

Wouldn't it be better to agree that there is a difference in what the scripture says and what scientifically could have happened and accept that there cannot be a reconciliation as far as you are concerned?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but as an atheist you are so far off the truth about God, life and death that whatever you say is skewed. All you can see is the physical reality in front of you.

My being an atheist has nothing to do with it. I used to be a Christian. Many atheists that used to be Christians became atheists due to a superior understanding of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem mixed up in what I am saying. I understand where you are coming from and don't expect you to consider my statements, but our experiences give us different premises we're working with. For you, you are constructing a hypothesis about what is and isn't real based on your own ability to reason alone in ignorance. For me, God has revealed truth through direct contact both in my life and through the Bible. I will build on the foundation of God's word, as opposed to your ignorant guesses and constructions.

"Revealed truth" is demonstrably more often false than true. There are countless different sects of Christianity alone. All with their own special nuanced beliefs. The beliefs of one sect often go against the beliefs of another and one persons "revealed truth" will disagree with the "revealed truth" of another. It appears that those are only instances of people believing what they want to belief. Reality does not care about anyone's personal beliefs which is why physical observations trump supposed spiritual ones.

One should always have an open mind that one can be wrong. That is why testable hypotheses are so important. What reasonable test could refute your religious beliefs? If you cannot think of one then it would appear that you do not have reliable evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Fervent]

"Revealed truth" is demonstrably more often false than true. There are countless different sects of Christianity alone. All with their own special nuanced beliefs. The beliefs of one sect often go against the beliefs of another and one persons "revealed truth" will disagree with the "revealed truth" of another. It appears that those are only instances of people believing what they want to belief. Reality does not care about anyone's personal beliefs which is why physical observations trump supposed spiritual ones.

One should always have an open mind that one can be wrong. That is why testable hypotheses are so important. What reasonable test could refute your religious beliefs? If you cannot think of one then it would appear that you do not have reliable evidence for your beliefs.

Let me ask you a question, do you have an open mind that you could be wrong that a set of irrational laws govern the universe? What reasonable test could refute that belief?

 

[coffee4u]

I think it's been mentioned that not all descriptions are meant to be taken literally. And as you say, scripture is not a science book. But you are not using scripture as a metaphor. You are saying that these things actually occurred, which could then be scientifically verified. But when you're asked for evidence you say that scripture is not science. And we go around again...

I am only here on this thread because pitabread asked for the creationist perspective.
I never said it could be verified, that is why it's called faith. You can't test the supernatural.
I don't believe because of what some creation scientist says but because I trust God.

I also realize not all scripture is literal, such as the psalms, but much is. the fact that sin caused death is from the New Testament, it is literal. When God says death will be vanquished at the end he means literal death will be done away with. The same way Jesus being born, died and resurrected is literal and is meant to be read as literal.
God didn't speak the curse to Adam as an idle threat. From dust you were made and from dust you will return. He was telling Adam what would happen to him now that the world was corrupted.